How much experience do you really need?

[gregregegg]

I'm genuinely not just saying this to take away from Usyk as I think he's brilliant, but I don't think history will have him anywhere near the top of the ATGs at heavyweight. Cruiser, definitely. Fury was at least a few years past his best when he beat him and AJ has been shot mentally since Ruiz. Recency bias is mad.

Should be remembered as the greatest ever cruiser really… people have some nostalgia for Holyfield but usyks run is better.

Hard to see history not remembering him as a top class heavyweight, hard to be the best of an era and not be remembered as a great…. Clearly the best since klitchcos. Arguably the best since Lennox.

You can claim fury was past his best but really it’s just the first time fury fought somone that can box and isn’t old.

You can say aj was shook since Ruiz…mabey he is or Mabey it’s just his aura disappeared. But he has still beat Ruiz, pulev, Franklin, Otto, nganu, since then..

[Oiky]

if you are gifted with natural attributes, have athleticism then you can do pretty well if you combine that with the willingness to learn and also the mental make up

physical gifts and a strong mind can take you to many places

[jonp]

I'm genuinely not just saying this to take away from Usyk as I think he's brilliant, but I don't think history will have him anywhere near the top of the ATGs at heavyweight. Cruiser, definitely. Fury was at least a few years past his best when he beat him and AJ has been shot mentally since Ruiz. Recency bias is mad.

Its either recent bias or that far away you cant see bias. The amount of people who swear fighters from the early 1900s were the best ever when really when you watch them you can see the sport was still learning and evolving. It would be like putting tank abbot and Don frye in modern day UFC good fighters and in their day legendary but the sport has moved on after its start and now a days they wouldnt live with the more developed fighters.
Thats how I feel about the early 20th century guys. Yep the recent guys as well get too much praise for being seen and right there sometimes.
Of course there are exceptions early and recently but there are the most biased views I see.

[SeanBrennan]

I think every current era looks upon the past ones through a glazed lens.

[jonp]

I think every current era looks upon the past ones through a glazed lens.

I think the 50s 60 and 70s deserve the credit. The 40s as well really, its a lot of the really early ones they are basically good fighters fighting white collar level opp and then being lauded 100 years later for beating a lot of guys who just were not high level and doing it a lot.

For me boxing hit a level skill wise (apart from the odd freak of nature) around the time of the murderers row. Before that there were strong and vicious and super fit guys but the level of skill and development was just not as good. People will hate me for saying it but Jack Johnsons level of opp just wasnt good. Jimmy wildes level of opposition just not great. Dempsey was a savage but once rules stopping him belting some one standing up came in here wasnt the same lol.

[SeanBrennan]

I think every current era looks upon the past ones through a glazed lens.

I think the 50s 60 and 70s deserve the credit. The 40s as well really, its a lot of the really early ones they are basically good fighters fighting white collar level opp and then being lauded 100 years later for beating a lot of guys who just were not high level and doing it a lot.

For me boxing hit a level skill wise (apart from the odd freak of nature) around the time of the murderers row. Before that there were strong and vicious and super fit guys but the level of skill and development was just not as good. People will hate me for saying it but Jack Johnsons level of opp just wasnt good. Jimmy wildes level of opposition just not great. Dempsey was a savage but once rules stopping him belting some one standing up came in here wasnt the same lol.

Excellent post this.